North Korea

What does Kim Jong Il’s defiance mean for the Bush military doctrine?
Can these events lead to yet another US military intervention? Offensiv
takes a closer look at the Korean crisis.

While the Bush administration has concentrated on the removal of the
Saddam regime in Iraq as its main priority, a new flashpoint of tension
has arisen on the Korean peninsula in the last month. Propaganda claims
and counter-claims have been exchanged in a situation which appeared to
be spiralling out of control.

Undoubtedly US imperialism’s new aggressive and arrogant approach to
international relations has massively inflamed tensions in the region.
Socialists give no support for the so-called "Communist" regime of the
dictator Kim Jong II in North Korea. The CWI stands in solidarity with
the workers and youth of North Korea who face US imperialist aggression
on the one side and mass starvation and economic collapse under a
Stalinist regime on the other.

Once again the breathtaking hypocrisy of US imperialism and the Bush
administration has been demonstrated. Whilst they have wept crocodile
tears over the widespread starvation in North Korea, they lost no time
in cutting off food aid to the country in response to the regime’s
stated intention of restarting one of its mothballed nuclear reactors.

The climbing tensions in the region accelerated in October 2002 when US
officials claimed that representatives of the North Korean regime had
admitted in joint meetings that they possessed nuclear missiles. This
has since been disputed by the Kim Jong II regime.

This is not the first time that the Korean peninsula has become a
potential nuclear flashpoint. Under the Clinton administration there
were serious discussions about a military strike (and even a nuclear
one) against the North Korean regime because of claims of the
development of its nuclear weapons programme. Fearing the consequences
of such an attack (see article below for details), Clinton opted for a
more measured approach, signing an ’Agreed Framework’ in 1994 with North
Korea. This agreement gave oil and food aid to North Korea in return for
which the regime closed down its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon
(capable of producing weapons grade plutonium). The US also promised to
build two light-water nuclear reactors in return for the siting of
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in the country. Work on
these reactors was continually delayed despite the fact that the first
was supposed to be on line by 1998.

The deterioration in the situation was given added impetus by Bush’s
infamous "axis of evil" speech in January 2002 which named North Korea
as a "rogue state". In effect this speech tore up the ’Agreed Framework’
and sent tremors of fear through the ruling classes of North East Asia
who had adopted a policy of ’containment’ of the North Korean regime.

The North Korean regime responded to the ending of the oil and food
programme by proclaiming that it would restart its Yongbyon nuclear
reactor. It followed by withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
treaty and expelling IAEA inspectors.

Despite its bluster, US imperialism has had no option for the moment but
to attempt to open lines of communication with the regime through third
parties.

The new Roh administration in South Korea has been insistent, despite
its pronouncements of the utmost importance of good relations with the
US, of continuing the "Sunshine Policy" of maintaining links with the
regime. The Roh administration as well as other governments in the
region have questioned even US plans to implement sanctions. The most
recent negotiations between North and South Korea have seen plans
floated of an economic community between the two economies. South Korea
hopes to convince the Kim Jong II regime to disarm or contain its
nuclear programme in return for more economic aid and closer ties.

A version of the article below, written by Laurence Coates for Offensiv,
first appeared in Offensiv, weekly paper of Rättvisepartiet
Socialisterna (CWI Sweden).

CWI Online

US imperialism confronts Pyongyang

What does the clash with North Korea mean for Bush’s military policy?

The Korean stand-off is a blow to the new military doctrine of the Bush
administration unveiled in a series of speeches and documents last year.
Following the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, Washington asserted
its right to take "preemptive" military action against regimes seeking
to aquire "catastrophic technologies" (nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons) which could threaten the US and its allies. The president
singled out three states - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - as an "axis of
evil" which represented a serious threat to world peace. This provided
the rationale for war against Iraq, ostensibly to destroy its weapons of
mass destruction, when the real war aims are to demonstrate US power
over an obdurate regime and gain access to Iraq’s strategically
important oil reserves.

That there is no oil in North Korea is of course an important
difference, but this alone does not explain Washington’s radically
different response to these two regimes. The situation on the Korean
peninsula is far more complex militarily and politically even than in
Iraq. Faced with these realities, Bush has been forced to recast himself
as a diplomat rather than a warmonger. The president stated the US "has
no plans to invade North Korea", announcing a policy of "tailored
containment" instead. This means new but as yet unspecified economic
sanctions. Even this non-military response, which increases the risk of
social collapse in North Korea, is a source of concern to neighbouring
states.

While Bush has refused to be a victim of "nuclear blackmail", his change
of approach will underline the impression that nuclear deterrence can
hold back even the world’s only superpower. However, the Korean crisis
merely underlines the fact that - regardless of the extent of US
military power - on the basis of capitalism and imperialism it is
impossible to halt the spread of "catastrophic technologies". On the
contrary, the national and regional tensions which are inherent in
capitalism make the spread of such weapons, including nuclear weapons,
inevitable.

Will the US go to war against North Korea?

Despite the statement by Donald Rumsfeld that the US can fight and win
two regional wars (Iraq and Korea) at the same time, this an extremely
unlikely scenario. The US military budget is greater than that of the
next 15 powers combined. There is no question who would prevail in a war
between the US and North Korea. But such a conflict could inflict
terrible devestation on South Korea and the region. It would risk
drawing in other powers such as Japan, Russia and China. With one
million troops, North Korea has the third largest land force in the
world. Even excluding the possible use of nuclear weapons, a new Korean
War could cause "the kind of conventional destruction we haven’t seen
since Stalingrad", according to Kurt Campbell, former US deputy
assistant secretary of defence. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is
just 40 kilometres south of the demilitarised zone which separates the
two states. US commentators claim that Pyongyang has up to 5,000 tons of
biochemical weaponary plus relatively advanced ballistic missiles which
can reach Japan. Of particular concern to US strategists is a possible
attack with chemical or nuclear weapons against the 37,000 US troops
based in South Korea or the 40,000 in Japan. The US presence in both
countries, but especially South Korea, is under severe strain at the
present time, a fact which the North Korean regime is keen to exploit.
Many South Koreans blame the US for precipitating the current crisis and
believe the surest way to peace is for US troops to leave Korea.

The option of "surgical" air strikes against the North’s nuclear
facilities was considered by the Clinton administration in 1994 but
rejected because it ran the risk of unleashing a radioactive cloud upon
South Korea. Clinton also rejected a nuclear strike against North Korea
for the same reason

"The fact is you can’t decapitate North Korea," warns Campbell. "It
would be the kind of conflict that holds hundreds of thousands of
Koreans hostage in the South."

For this reason the governments of South Korea, Russia, China and Japan
are exerting pressure on Bush to rule out military action. The US cannot
lightly disregard this pressure, especially from its main allies in
Asia, Japan and South Korea.

Could nuclear or chemical weapons be used?

Since the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
world relations have become more unstable and unpredictable. This is
true also in relation to possible nuclear threats. The proliferation of
nuclear weapons to countries such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and
possibly Iran and other states in the future, presents a much more
complex range of threats than the comparatively ordered bipolar system
which existed under the so called Cold War. Even then it was possible,
as in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, for the military leaderships of
the two opposing camps to misread each others’ intentions and take the
world perilously close to a nuclear exchange.

Despite Kim Jong Il’s "war" rhetoric, his regime knows that any
deployment of nuclear or even chemical weapons will provoke such massive
retaliation from US imperialism that his regime, and much of North
Korean society, would be destroyed. The regime is attempting to exploit
the potential threat of nuclear Armageddon to force the imperialist
states to negotiate. But there are future scenarios in which a nuclear
exchange in Korea is conceivable, for example during an escalation of
hostilities in which a US invasion looked imminent, or in the event of
the regime disintegrating into warring factions, one or more of which
could have access to the country’s stockpiles of doomsday weapons.

What are the intentions of the North Korea regime?

Kim Jong Il’s Stalinist regime is waging a desperate struggle to stay in
power. Since the collapse in 1991 of its main trading partner, the
Soviet Union, gross domestic product has shrunk by one-third. Life
expectancy has fallen by six years since 1993. Of a total population of
22 million, over half are malnourished and seven million are dependent
on the UN and foreign food donors. The UN has warned that due to a drop
in international donations three million North Koreans will go unfed
this winter, rising to six million next year. The hawks in the Bush
administration may rely on this humanitarian catastrophe to either force
the North Korean regime to retreat or even to bring about its fall.

The North Korean economy has collapsed. Everything is in short supply.
Steel production has been abandoned due to lack of electricity. The
regime only has one form of leverage with which to try to wring
concessions in the form of aid and investments from the imperialist
states. This is the threat to destabilise northeast Asia - a region of
decisive importance for global capitalism - and ultimately to wage war.
The fear that after Iraq, Bush may target the North Korea has only
heightened the regime’s desperation. North Korea wants the US to sign a
"non-aggression pact" ruling out military action. It also hopes to
extract promises of substantial aid from Japan in particular, in the
form of "reparations" for Japan’s brutal colonial rule 1910-45. In
return for this, Pyongyang would readmit UN inspectors. With the US
forced to concentrate on its conflict with Iraq, the Bush administration
may be forced to make temporary concessions.

How do South Koreans view the crisis?

US military officials are reportedly ’bemused’ by public opinion in
South Korea. Many blame the US for provoking Pyongyang and even admire
North Korea for standing up to the US.

As one Seoul restaurant owner told the Financial Times, "George Bush is
a bigger danger to the world than Kim Jong Il".

South Korea is experiencing a wave of anti-US protests dwarfing anything
seen in the past. The accidental killing of two schoolgirls in June by a
US military vehicle and the subsequent aquittal of the soldiers involved
has triggered demonstrations of over 300,000 across the country. This
mood dominated the December presidential election which saw the
unexpected victory of the ruling party’s candidate, Roh Moo-hyun. Roh
exploited the growing anti-US mood to come from third place, declaring
that South Korea’s policies should be decided in Seoul, not Washington.
Since the elections Roh has appealed for an end to anti-US protests and
sharpened his tone towards the North in an attempt to avert a serious
rift with Washington. But the protests have continued into 2003,
demanding the withdrawal of US troops from Korea. The pressure-cooker
atmosphere in South Korea is a key factor exerting restraint on
Washington.

Even among the country’s rulers there is massive resentment against the
arrogance of the Bush administration and a general view that the "axis
of evil" approach has aggravated the situation. In Japan too there is
huge pressure for a diplomatic rather than military solution. The
historic visit by prime minister Junichiro Koizumi to Pyongyang in
September boosted his flagging opinion ratings and genrated widespread
support for "normalisation" talks with the North Korean regime. A key
issue in these talks is the return of Japanese citizens kidnapped by
North Korean agents in the 1970s and 80s. These negotiations have now
stalled with Japan forced to fall into line behind US sanctions. Both
South Korea and Japan have gone along with this approach at the moment
as the "lesser evil" compared to military action.

What kind of regime?

The North Korean regime has nothing in common with the ideas of
socialism. While socialists oppose US imperialism’s presence on the
Korean peninsula, we give no support whatsoever to this gangster regime
which squanders one quarter of state expenditure on arms while millions
of people go unfed. Kim’s ’Korean Workers’ Party’ represents a bizarre
form of Stalinism which has taken nationalist ideology and autarchy to
extremes even by the standards of Stalin himself. A fanatical
personality cult with religious overtones surrounds Kim Jong Il and his
late father, Kim Il Sung, the founder of the state.

In July the government implemented market ’reforms’ which foreign
commentators described as "reckless", "rushed" and "explosive". Prices
were freed and the country’s burgeoning black market was legalised. A
30-fold rise in the basic wage was outstripped by a 50-fold hike in bus
fares and electricity prices and a 550-fold rise in the price of rice.

The restoration of capitalism in North Korea is however more
problematical than elsewhere in Asia. Without a system of safeguards to
protect its position, a nascent capitalist regime in the North would be
completely devoured by the powerful South Korean capitalists, as
happened in Germany in 1990 (during the capitalist reunifcation of East
and West Germany). Neither can the South Korean state afford the
astronomical costs of reunification. Therefore at this stage neither of
the two ruling elites want full-scale reunification, preferring instead
to maintain two states, seperate borders, currency and other controls
within a "gradual reunification" framework of agreements over trade,
investment, security etc.

Historical factors play an important part in the outlook of the northern
regime. The South Korean state was set up under US patronage in 1948
based on the remnants of the colonial army which served the Japanese
occupation of Korea. The northern state issued from the anti-Japanese
resistance movement and then the war against US imperialism (1950-53) in
which three million Koreans died. Because of this, North Korea retains
an anti-imperialist aura among many youth and workers in South Korea,
something evident in the anti-US protests today. While the situation
inside North Korea is harder to gauge, the regime can still probably
mobilise support by whipping up fears of a US invasion.

Is North Korea near collapse?

An economist at HSBC bank commented that "The nightmare scenario for
global investors is the collapse of North Korea and its forcible
assimilation into the South". This perspective is by no means fanciful
in the coming period. Foreign visitors compare the situation in the
North to Romania in the final years of the Stalinist Ceaucescu
dictatorship. The disintegration of North Korea would trigger a crisis
throughout northeast Asia. A wave of refugees would pour southwards into
South Korea and northwards into China. The South Korean economy, the
world’s ninth biggest, would be sent into a crippling recession or slump
by the costs of reunification. At an estimated $3,200 billion, the bill
for reunification is the equivalent of eight years’ GDP. This would pose
a bigger threat to the economies of East Asia, including Japan and
China, than the Asian crisis of 1997. Should civil war erupt in the
North, its huge army could split into warring factions, some elements
perhaps resorting to banditry and extortion backed up by the threat of
chemical or nuclear weapons. This "chaos scenario" is the strongest card
in Kim Jong Il’s hand: "Après moi, le déluge"!